AI in the Dock: Courts and Regulators Worldwide Grapple With the Risks and Promise of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Practice

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence tools — particularly generative systems capable of drafting legal text — has triggered one of the most consequential debates the global legal profession has faced in decades. Courts, bar associations and governments are grappling with how far lawyers can rely on AI without undermining professional ethics, due process and public trust. What began as quiet experimentation inside large law firms has quickly evolved into a high-stakes regulatory and judicial conversation spanning multiple continents.

 

Nowhere has the debate been more intense than in the United States, where a series of high-profile courtroom incidents involving AI-generated errors has prompted judicial warnings, sanctions and fresh scrutiny from professional bodies. Yet across Europe, Asia and the Middle East, the legal sector is simultaneously embracing AI’s efficiency gains, creating a complex global picture in which enthusiasm for innovation sits alongside deep institutional caution.

 

The US Experience: Enthusiasm Meets Judicial Scrutiny

 

The American experience has become the focal point largely because of the speed with which problems surfaced. Beginning in 2023 and continuing through 2024 and 2025, several US courts confronted filings that contained fictitious case citations produced by generative AI tools. In one widely reported federal case in New York, lawyers admitted they had relied on an AI chatbot that generated non-existent precedents. The court responded with monetary sanctions and stern warnings about professional responsibility. Similar incidents soon appeared in other jurisdictions, prompting judges to issue standing orders requiring attorneys to verify AI-assisted work or certify that filings had been independently checked.

 

These episodes have shaped the tone of the US debate. Major news agencies and prominent newspapers have consistently framed the issue as a cautionary tale about over-reliance on emerging technology. Judicial commentary has stressed that while innovation is welcome, the duty of candour to the court remains absolute. The American Bar Association has reinforced this message, emphasising that existing ethical rules on competence, supervision and confidentiality already apply to AI-assisted practice. In the ABA’s view, the technology does not create new ethical duties so much as it heightens the need to comply with longstanding ones.

 

Why Many Lawyers Support AI Adoption

 

Despite the controversy, support for AI within the legal sector remains strong, particularly among large firms and corporate legal departments. Proponents argue that AI has the potential to reshape legal services by automating routine work that traditionally consumes vast amounts of lawyer time. Document review, contract analysis and large-scale legal research are frequently cited as areas where AI can deliver substantial efficiency gains. Law firms experimenting with these tools report significant reductions in turnaround times, especially in due diligence exercises tied to mergers and acquisitions.

 

Corporate clients are also driving adoption. Many general counsel, under pressure to control legal spending, see AI as a practical way to reduce costs without sacrificing quality. In a profession often criticised for high billing rates and slow processes, AI is being presented as a technological equaliser that could make legal services more accessible. Legal technology advocates frequently highlight the access-to-justice dimension, arguing that AI-assisted tools could help self-represented litigants, small businesses and legal aid providers navigate complex legal systems more effectively.

 

Supporters further contend that modern legal AI platforms, when properly designed, can enhance research quality rather than diminish it. By rapidly scanning vast databases of statutes and case law, these systems can surface relevant authorities that might otherwise be overlooked in time-pressured environments. Some academics and judges have cautiously acknowledged that supervised AI may reduce certain categories of human error, particularly in large document reviews where fatigue and volume are significant risk factors.

 

The Growing List of Concerns

 

The counterarguments remain powerful and continue to shape regulatory responses. The most immediate concern is reliability. Generative AI systems are prone to so-called hallucinations, producing authoritative-sounding but false information. The US sanctions cases have become emblematic of this risk. Judges have repeatedly warned that fabricated citations strike at the heart of the justice system because courts depend on the accuracy of authorities cited by counsel. Unlike ordinary clerical mistakes, AI-generated errors can appear highly polished and convincing, making them harder to detect without careful verification.

 

Closely tied to reliability is the question of professional responsibility. Courts in the United States have been unequivocal that lawyers remain fully accountable for everything filed in their name. Judicial opinions have stressed that the use of AI does not dilute the duty of candour or competence. Ethics experts warn that widespread reliance on automated drafting tools could gradually erode professional standards if lawyers begin treating AI output as presumptively trustworthy. The concern is not merely technological but cultural, touching on how legal training and supervision may evolve in the coming years.

 

Confidentiality presents another layer of complexity. Many generative AI systems process user inputs on remote servers, raising concerns that sensitive client information could be exposed or reused in model training. Bar associations in multiple jurisdictions have issued guidance urging lawyers to scrutinise the privacy terms of AI platforms before uploading client data. For firms handling highly sensitive commercial or criminal matters, data security remains a significant barrier to full-scale adoption.

 

There are also broader systemic worries about bias and fairness. Researchers and civil society groups caution that AI systems trained on historical legal data may replicate existing inequities embedded in past decisions. These concerns are particularly acute in criminal justice contexts involving risk assessment tools or predictive analytics. While generative AI used for drafting is somewhat removed from adjudicative decision-making, critics argue that unchecked reliance could still introduce subtle distortions into legal reasoning.

 

Regulation Takes Shape Across Jurisdictions

 

Regulatory responses worldwide are now evolving, though unevenly. The United States currently operates through a patchwork of judicial orders, ethics opinions and case-specific sanctions rather than a single nationwide rule. This incremental approach reflects a broader American regulatory tradition of adapting existing professional frameworks rather than imposing sweeping new legislation. Some federal judges have required disclosure when AI is used in drafting, while others have opted for softer guidance, indicating that consensus is still forming.

 

Europe is moving in a more structured direction. The European Union’s emerging AI regulatory framework signals that certain legal AI applications may be treated as high risk, thereby subjecting them to stricter compliance obligations. European bar bodies have generally adopted a cautiously permissive stance, encouraging innovation but insisting on meaningful human oversight. The United Kingdom has followed a similar path, with courts and professional regulators reminding lawyers that AI-generated material must be carefully verified before submission.

 

In India and across much of the Global South, the approach remains experimental. Indian courts have permitted limited administrative uses of AI, such as translation and case management assistance, while repeatedly clarifying that AI cannot replace judicial reasoning. Several Middle Eastern jurisdictions, including the United Arab Emirates, are actively promoting legal technology as part of broader digital transformation strategies, though comprehensive ethical frameworks are still developing.

 

Law Firms Move Ahead Despite the Noise

 

Within law firms themselves, adoption continues to accelerate despite the controversies. Industry surveys cited by major international publications indicate that a substantial majority of large firms are either piloting or actively deploying generative AI tools in internal workflows. The prevailing model is one of assisted intelligence rather than automation, with lawyers retaining final responsibility for all outputs. Legal technology vendors, responding to judicial criticism, are increasingly marketing “legal-grade” AI systems trained on verified databases in an effort to reduce hallucination risks.

 

Judicial attitudes, particularly in the United States, suggest that outright resistance to AI is unlikely. Many judges are simultaneously warning lawyers about misuse while exploring AI for internal court administration. This dual approach indicates that the judiciary is not opposed to the technology itself but is determined to enforce professional discipline during its integration into legal practice.

 

The Road Ahead

Looking ahead, most analysts expect the near future to feature more explicit court rules, additional ethics guidance and continued disciplinary actions in egregious cases. Over the medium term, AI competence is likely to become a standard component of legal training and professional development. In the longer horizon, AI is expected to become deeply embedded in legal workflows in much the same way electronic research databases transformed the profession in the late twentieth century.

 

What appears increasingly unlikely, however, is the full automation of legal judgment or judicial decision-making. Constitutional principles, questions of legitimacy and the inherently interpretive nature of law continue to act as strong brakes on that possibility. The emerging global consensus is not that AI should be rejected, but that it must be tightly supervised.

 

The legal profession now finds itself at a familiar historical inflection point, comparable to earlier technological shifts but arguably more consequential. The United States has become the primary testing ground where judicial enforcement is shaping norms in real time, while Europe is building a regulatory architecture and other regions proceed with measured experimentation. Across jurisdictions, one principle continues to dominate the conversation: artificial intelligence may assist lawyers, but it cannot replace their judgment, accountability or duty to the court.

 

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.